The Legal Scoop on Southwest Florida Real Estatehttp://www.legalscoopswflre.com
Wed, 04 Oct 2017 07:00:35 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.6http://legalscoop.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/74/2016/03/cropped-favicon-round-32x32.pngThe Legal Scoop on Southwest Florida Real Estatehttp://www.legalscoopswflre.com
3232Meet the Appraiser: Matt Simmonshttp://www.legalscoopswflre.com/eminent-domain/meet-the-appraiser-matt-simmons/
http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/eminent-domain/meet-the-appraiser-matt-simmons/#respondWed, 04 Oct 2017 07:00:35 +0000http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/?p=2291Continue reading...]]>If you’re a regular reader of this blog (and I hope you are, or will become one!), you will know that many of my posts, over the years, have to do with property rights. An important component of property rights is valuation of the property right taken, or at stake. Today, as part of my series with local appraisers, I am interviewing Matt Simmons, an appraiser and principal with the firm of Maxwell, Hendry & Simmons, LLC.

Carlos: What do appraisers do?

Matt: At the core, we value the bundle of rights inherent in real property. We typically determine the value through application of one or more commonly accepted approaches to value: the Sales Comparison, Cost, or Income approach. But within each approach the nuance of the overall rights remains the value driver. The acronym DUE encompasses the fundamental rights most fee simple real property possesses. These are the rights of disposition, use, and exclusion. When an action (governmental or otherwise) impacts one of these rights, the value of the property is almost always impacted.

Carlos: What made you want to become an appraiser?

Matt: Like many professionals, I was introduced to the profession through a friend. I began working in appraisal data entry when I was 19 and gained my initial trainees license the following year. I’ve always had an interest in real estate and the opportunity to analyze properties, solve complex valuation issues, and build a real estate centered business is incredibly rewarding.

Carlos: How do you work with attorneys in property rights cases?

Matt: We talked before about the fundamental rights (DUE) in real property. Often, we’re retained by attorneys to determine the value loss (diminution) caused by a loss of some or all of these rights. And it’s more common than you might think. An eminent domain action relative to a road widening or utilities project is probably the most commonly known instance. But changes in zoning, land use, variances granted to neighbors, floodways, or building code amendments are all circumstances where we’ve been retained by an attorney to evaluate the value impact due to a loss or reduction of property rights.

Carlos: What are cap rates and how do they figure in a valuation analysis?

Matt: Capitalization rates are really just an expression of the relationship between a sales price (SP) and net operating income (NOI), expressed as NOI/SP. So a property that has a sales price of $500,000 and has an annual net operating income of $50,000 would have a 10% cap rate. The cap rate is really a way of telling how much an investor is willing to pay for a particular stream of income. Lower cap rates are associated with properties that are perceived to have less risk. These include nationally recognized tenants with stable financials and longer terms leases. Recently, properties in this category have sold with 4-5% cap rates. While this is a seemingly low return on an investment, the rate is an acknowledgement that there is a low level of risk associated with it. In contract, properties with high cap rates are perceived to contain a higher degree of risk. Cap rates come into play for an appraiser by making sure you understand how a property would be viewed by a prospective buyer and what rate they would associate with the property.

Carlos: What valuation trends have you seen over the last six months in the vacant land market in Lee County?

Matt: There have been a number of acquisitions of vacant sites that are suitable for medium to large scale development. Prices have continued to rise on a ‘per acre’ or ‘per unit’ basis and developers have been particularly interested in finding sites suitable for multi-family development. We’ve also seen a number of marginal, infill, and environmentally challenged properties trade hands. This is a sign that our market is continuing to grow and mature. The ‘easy’ properties are mostly gone at this point and developers have to be more creative in looking for opportunities.

As you can see, property value is an integral part of the property rights framework. This comes directly from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires “just compensation” if private property is taken for public use. Stay tuned for interviews with other local appraisers.

]]>http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/eminent-domain/meet-the-appraiser-matt-simmons/feed/0Homestead, Save Our Homes, and Corrections to Assessed Value: Are You Ready for Your 2017 Property Taxes?http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/property-tax/homestead-save-our-homes-and-corrections-to-assessed-value-are-you-ready-for-your-2017-property-taxes/
http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/property-tax/homestead-save-our-homes-and-corrections-to-assessed-value-are-you-ready-for-your-2017-property-taxes/#respondWed, 16 Aug 2017 07:00:42 +0000http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/?p=2289Continue reading...]]>As of January 1st of 2017, it has been reported that the total value of real property in Lee County increased for the fifth consecutive year to $105.6 billion (nearly 9% higher than 2016 values).

With this year’s Truth in Millage (“TRIM”) Notices just around the corner (typically mailed by the Lee County Property Appraiser in mid-August), one recent legal opinion highlights the nuances of remedies available to the property owner—and the Property Appraiser—in the event assessed values are contested.

Background on Florida’s “Save Our Homes” Doctrine

For real property that has been classified as a “homestead” in Florida, the Save Our Homes provision of Section 193.155(1), Florida Statutes, allows for an annual increase of only 3% in the assessed value of property, or the yearly increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is less. Moreover, under 193.155(2), Florida Statutes, if the capped value exceeds the market value in a given year, the capped value will be reduced to the market value.

Nikolits v. Haney

In Nikolits v. Haney, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1261 (Fla. 4th DCA May 31, 2017), owners challenged the County Property Appraiser’s 2010 assessed value of $19.7 million for their homestead property. The County’s Value Adjustment Board (VAB) reduced the assessment to $12 million and the Property Appraiser challenged the VAB’s decision in court. After several years in litigation, a final judgment was rendered in 2014 establishing an assessed value of $17.1 million for the property for 2010. Neither party appealed.

During the pendency of the litigation over the 2010 value, the Property Appraiser applied the Save Our Homes 3% cap to the VAB’s value of $12 million, resulting in assessed values of $12.1 million in 2011, $12.5 million in 2012, and $12.7 million in 2013. Once the litigation concluded, the Property Assessor filed Certificates of Correction for 2011 through 2013, recalculating taxes based on the court’s final judgment establishing an assessed value of $17.1 million for 2010. The end result was that the property owner’s taxes increased by over $90,000 for each of the three tax years.

Again, the owner petitioned to the VAB but, this time, the VAB rejected the petitions without a hearing. The owner proceeded to court, arguing that the recalculation of its taxes was not permitted and that the rejection of its petitions to the VAB was improper. The trial sided with the owners, and the Property Appraiser appealed.

On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that:

the recalculation of the taxes was a permissible correction of a “mathematical” error, but

the rejection of the petitions without a hearing by the VAB was not proper.

Accordingly, on remand, the Property Appraiser was directed to allow the owner to contest the valuations for 2011 through 2013 to the VAB.

What’s the Legal Scoop?

The Fourth District’s recent Nikolits decision illustrates the numerous intricacies of challenging property tax assessments in Florida and the need to be aware of remedies available to both the landowner and the Property Appraiser.

If you have any additional questions about the Nikolits case or general concerns regarding your new TRIM Notice and the local government’s authority to levy ad valorem taxes under Florida law, please do not hesitate to contact our office by dialing (239) 344-1100, or reach me via email at: Austin.Turner@henlaw.com.

]]>http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/property-tax/homestead-save-our-homes-and-corrections-to-assessed-value-are-you-ready-for-your-2017-property-taxes/feed/0A New Set of Tires and the Latest Supreme Court Case on Property Rightshttp://www.legalscoopswflre.com/eminent-domain/a-new-set-of-tires-and-the-latest-supreme-court-case-on-property-rights/
http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/eminent-domain/a-new-set-of-tires-and-the-latest-supreme-court-case-on-property-rights/#respondFri, 28 Jul 2017 07:00:05 +0000http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/?p=2276Continue reading...]]>What do they have in common? Nothing…except that when I was getting a new set of tires put on my car, I had time to read Murr v. Wisconsin, the recent U.S. Supreme Court 40-page decision in a property rights case involving a regulatory takings analysis.

Facts

The facts of the case are pretty simple. The Murrs purchased Lots E and F separately in the 1960s, transferring Lot F to a family plumbing business, but keeping ownership of Lot E in their own names. The Murrs transferred Lot F to their kids in 1994 and Lot E to the kids in 1995. The lots each had less than one acre available for development. The Murr kids brought the lots under common ownership (in other words, the kids owned both lots, unlike the parents, who owned one lot through a company and the other lot as individuals).

Once under common ownership, state and local rules forbidding separate sale or development of the lots came in to play. The Murr kids wanted to sell Lot E as part of an improvement plan for both lots, and requested variances from the local zoning authority. The zoning authority denied the variance request, and the state courts affirmed the denial of the variance request.

While the facts are simple, regulatory takings law is a jumbled mess. As the Supreme Court charitably put it,

This area of the law has been characterized by ‘ad hoc, factual inquiries, designed to allow careful examination and weighing of all the relevant circumstances.’”

In order to decide the Murr case, the majority had to decide what is the property to be considered in the takings analysis. In determining that no taking occurred, the majority announced an involved, multi-factor test. The Murr kids’ decision to take title to both lots was significant in the majority’s analysis.

Although not seriously concerned by the outcome the majority reached, the minority wrote that the majority’s new test actually weakens property rights.

Take-Away

Here’s what you should take away from Murr: the Murr kids’ voluntary conduct, in unifying the two parcels under common ownership and implicating state and local rules barring the lots’ separate sale or development, created a problem. A problem that could have been avoided by taking title to the lots separately instead of under common ownership.

]]>http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/eminent-domain/a-new-set-of-tires-and-the-latest-supreme-court-case-on-property-rights/feed/0Actions Speak Louder Than Wordshttp://www.legalscoopswflre.com/eminent-domain/actions-speak-louder-than-words/
http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/eminent-domain/actions-speak-louder-than-words/#respondWed, 26 Jul 2017 07:00:34 +0000http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/?p=2270Continue reading...]]>It’s an old saying, but it’s true in life and in court, as illustrated in a recent takings decision, Town of Ponce Inlet v. Pacetta, LLC, et al. The Town appealed “a multi-million-dollar” judgment on an inverse condemnation claim. Like most takings cases, this one has a long and confusing history.

The property owners had purchased ten adjoining parcels, seeking to develop a waterfront project. The Town, however, amended its comprehensive land use plan, leaving the property owners unable to develop the ten parcels as contemplated.

First Lawsuit

The property owners sued the Town, challenging the amended comprehensive land use plan. The property owners successfully argued, at both trial and on appeal, that the ten parcels should be treated as a single 16 acre parcel.

Second Lawsuit

The property owners then sought damages from the Town for inverse condemnation, among other theories. They claimed that each of the ten parcels was taken by the Town’s regulations, which prevented the development of the waterfront project. The trial court found a taking of four of the ten parcels. The trial court, however, did not find a taking for the other six parcels. The court also ruled that the property owners were entitled to damages under claims for violation of equal protection and due process rights. Following the Town’s appeal, a jury awarded $30,775,248.29 against the Town. That’s thirty Million (with a capital “M”)!

The Town’s Appeal

The Town appealed, and that’s where things got interesting. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the $30,775,248.29 jury verdict. Why? Because the property owners, in the first suit, had successfully argued the ten parcels were actually one 16 acre parcel, they could not in the second suit reverse their position and say they had ten parcels.

What’s the Legal Scoop?

It’s important to recognize that, yes, actions do speak louder than words. This is especially important to remember in land use and takings litigation, where owners may be making filings—taking actions— in several different proceedings. Those “actions” can end up speaking louder than words because the filings in one proceeding may bind an owner in another proceeding. Like chess, once you take your hand off the piece, you’re committed, so think several moves ahead so that your preliminary “actions” will speak well for you later in the proceedings, also.

Background

On July 12, Sears Roebuck (“Sears”) prevailed over the City of Palm Beach Gardens (“The City”) and the owner of the Gardens Mall (“Forbes”) in a commercial sublease dispute involving a violation of the store’s substantive due process rights under the Florida and U.S. Constitutions and unconstitutional impairment of contract.

The Sublease

In 1987, Sears Roebuck entered into a thirty-year lease with Forbes. Sears desired to sublease part of its store in the mall to Dicks Sporting Goods in 2011. Forbes later sent a letter to Sears stating that Sears could not sublease to Dick’s Sporting Goods because Sears had no right to sublease, the sports store lacked signage rights, and Dick’s Sporting Goods “did not belong” at the mall.

Resolution 20-2012

Unbeknownst to Sears, Forbes requested the City enact a resolution granting mall owner (Forbes’) approval over subleases and store modifications. Forbes contributed to the drafting process. The City passed Resolution 20-2012 (“Resolution”) which contained no criteria or grounds for approving or denying of any of the listed modifications or proposed subleases and heard no testimony regarding the Resolution.

Holding

Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeals ultimately agreed with Sears, finding that Resolution 20-2012 unconstitutionally impaired Sears’ right to contract with Dick’s Sporting Goods because it gave unilateral approval to the City and Forbes without specific criteria, which allowed Forbes to arbitrarily deny Sears’ sublease. Most importantly, the court stated the Resolution lacked a legitimate interest for a public purpose and no rational basis. To the court, the existing City Planned Unit Development already accomplished the public purpose of the Resolution.

Accordingly, the court held that Sears had a right to sublease to Dick’s Sporting Goods, that the City had deprived Sears of substantive due process, and awarded Sears reasonable fees and costs as the prevailing party.

Future Action

At trial, Sears conceded that the sublease to Dick’s Sporting Goods would require municipal approval through waivers because the plans for signage did not comply with the City’s zoning standards. However, Sears noted regular industry practice involved working with municipalities obtain approvals and waivers for signage. It will be interesting to observe whether or not the City grants the waivers for the signage now that it has lost to Sears at trial, especially since Sears’ lease is up in 2018.

Take-Away

Always be sure to determine if governing ordinances provide sufficient criteria for unilateral decision-making, otherwise there may be a lurking claim that the decision is arbitrary and the ordinance could be unconstitutional.

Photo Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

]]>http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/leasing/big-box-store-scores-a-big-win/feed/0Fight for Your Rightshttp://www.legalscoopswflre.com/eminent-domain/fight-for-your-rights/
http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/eminent-domain/fight-for-your-rights/#respondThu, 13 Jul 2017 07:00:14 +0000http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/?p=2259Continue reading...]]>According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, the word “fight” has several meanings, including

[t]o stand up against something or assert oneself.”

Recently, as a nation, we celebrated the 241st anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. We are justly proud of that independence. The signers, and other heroes, stood against tyranny and asserted themselves for liberty.

It took a fight to achieve that independence. It has taken many other fights since then to preserve it.

Recently, I attended a fight of a different sort, to watch a friend compete in a mixed martial arts tournament. My friend, Izzy Lara, pursued a very aggressive strategy, practically sprinting to his opponent in order to begin striking as soon as possible. The strategy paid off, and Izzy took the featherweight champion belt.

What is the common thread? It’s the fighting spirit; the love of liberty and the passion for action.

As a property owner, you may need to fight against government authorities seeking to take your property. Don’t be afraid to preserve your property rights. Take action by questioning the government’s need for your property. By exercising your rights, you help preserve our democracy.

]]>http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/eminent-domain/fight-for-your-rights/feed/0Negligent Security Claims: Reducing Liability for Associationshttp://www.legalscoopswflre.com/condominium/negligent-security-claims-reducing-liability-for-associations/
http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/condominium/negligent-security-claims-reducing-liability-for-associations/#respondThu, 06 Jul 2017 07:00:42 +0000http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/?p=2231Continue reading...]]>In recent years, Condominium and Homeowner’s Associations have become a target for negligent security lawsuits and claims. Typically, a resident or guest of an Association is a victim of a violent crime and the crime victim later sues the Association. While we discussed this previously, we wanted to provide an update after speaking with Henderson Franklin’s premises liability litigation partner, Traci McKee, for additional thoughts on what Associations can do to reduce liability.

Can property owners be liable for the criminal acts of third parties?

Unfortunately, the answer is “yes.” In a negligent security claim, the crime victim claims that the Association failed to implement reasonable security measures which would have prevented the crime. In most instances, the injury to the victim is severe resulting in a large potential exposure to the Association.

Under Florida law, landowners, including Associations, owe residents and guests a duty to take reasonable steps to protect against foreseeable crimes. Whether an Association’s safety measures were reasonable is typically a question for a jury. To determine whether a particular crime was foreseeable usually depends upon multiple factors such as past crimes at or near the property, and an Association’s knowledge of dangerous propensities of an individual.

Gated and high-end communities are especially susceptible to negligent security claims. Residents and guests in these communities perceive themselves as being safe and immune from crime and, thus, fail to take ordinary precautions to protect themselves from crimes—things such as leaving doors unlocked, leaving windows open, and failing to set alarms.

What can an Association do to help protect its homeowners and at the same time reduce its potential liability?

Between litigation costs and damage awards, as well as the increasing costs of insurance, negligent security claims can be quite expensive for Associations. While each Association needs to evaluate the unique risks it faces, the following simple steps should assist in reducing the potential liability of an Association for a negligent security claim:

Consult legal counsel to include a disclaimer in the Association’s governing documents;

Be careful when using terms such as “safety” and “security” when referring to access personnel;

Send out regular notices to owners (such as letters, newsletters, or e-mail blasts) of the following:

Crimes that occur within the community;

Reminding owners that it is each owner’s responsibility to utilize and implement reasonable security measures – locking doors, closing windows, setting security alarms, installing adequate lighting and motion sensors, etc. Remind owners not to rely upon the gates or access personnel to prevent crime; and

Asking owners to remind their guests and vendors to utilize reasonable security measures.

Keep dated copies of the regular notices sent out by the Association;

Make a security disclaimer announcement at regular board meetings and include the announcement in the meeting minutes;

Regularly assess crimes occurring at or near the Association property; and

]]>http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/condominium/negligent-security-claims-reducing-liability-for-associations/feed/0HOA’s: Your Restrictions Have an Expiration Datehttp://www.legalscoopswflre.com/condominium/hoas-your-restrictions-have-an-expiration-date/
http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/condominium/hoas-your-restrictions-have-an-expiration-date/#respondWed, 28 Jun 2017 07:00:18 +0000http://www.legalscoopswflre.com/?p=2243Continue reading...]]> With the turnover of volunteer homeowner’s association (“HOA”) board members over time, it is not surprising that certain important long-term issues may be overlooked. There is one very important law, however, which board members may not be aware of that can eliminate an HOA’s ability to enforce its restrictions.

I am often contacted by an HOA board at the last minute before their restrictions “expire” under this law and even sometimes after they expire. Below is a breakdown of the two different processes an HOA must follow to preserve the restrictions before they expire or, if the deadline has been missed, to revitalize the restrictions.

What is the law and why?

The Marketable Records Title Act (“MRTA”) is a Florida law designed to eliminate “stale” recorded claims that affect the title to real property, such as old recorded leases for which the beneficiaries have long departed or dissolved. Without MRTA, all of these documents still have to be shown on title commitments and policies even though they may have long since become irrelevant and unused. Unfortunately, there isn’t an exemption to save old (and still active) association covenants unless the affirmative steps are taken to preserve them.

What does it mean to HOA’s?

The simplified explanation is that the recorded covenants governing a community must be preserved before the end of a 30 year period beginning on the date they were recorded. The Florida statute lays out the process that an association must go through to preserve the effectiveness of the recorded covenants if the 30 years has not yet expired. The preservation process will mean that the covenants are effective under MRTA for another 30 years. HOA’s must still look at the Declaration to determine if the covenants expire under their own terms at another date without an automatic renewal.

Merely amending or restating the covenants does not restart the 30-year clock. The statutory process must be followed. For preservation, the Statement of Marketable Title Action provided in Section 712.06, Florida Statutes must be sent to all homeowners seven (7) days in advance of the board meeting to consider preserving the covenants. The Board must approve the preservation by at least 2/3 vote of the Board, and then a Notice of Marketable Title Action is recorded in the public records.

What if an HOA misses the 30-year deadline?

“Revitalization” is required to reinstate the recorded covenants for another 30 years. The revitalization process that applies to HOA’s is found in the Homeowners’ Association Act (ch. 720, Florida Statutes).

Revitalization Process

In order to revitalize, a majority of the owners of the affected property must approve of the revitalization. The process also includes:

Forming an “Organizing Committee” to prepare the proposed revitalized documents.

Providing notice to all homeowners that includes the HOA documents (as well as the current articles of incorporation and bylaws), a graphic depiction of the property (often a copy of the plat, if applicable), and the form of written consent for them to sign to approve the revitalization (unless the HOA is holding a vote at a meeting).

Submitting the approved documents, the consents, and other documentation verifying that the proper process was followed to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (“FDEO”) for approval.

Upon approval by the FDEO, the revitalized Declaration, the current Articles, Bylaws, and affected property owners and property list are recorded.

Bottom Line

It is important to note that the expiration date under MRTA applies regardless of whether an HOA’s Declaration of Restrictions contains its own expiration date. Both the MRTA deadline and the Declaration’s own expiration provisions must be addressed by all HOA’s. The process may be daunting for some Boards, but a successful revitalization or preservation is possible with some diligence. If you have any questions or concerns regarding how MRTA applies to your HOA, please feel free to contact me at amanda.barritt@henlaw.com or by phone at 239-344-1108.

The 2017 Florida legislature just recently passed a new law that will require associations to comply with a request for an estoppel certificate within 10 business days. If they fail to do so, they will forfeit their right to charge a fee for the preparation and delivery of the document.

Furthermore, the fee that an association may charge is now strictly regulated. The fee is capped at $250 if there are no delinquent amounts owed to the association for the applicable unit or parcel, or $400 if a delinquent amount is owed. However, associations may charge an additional $100 if an expedited request is made, and the association delivers the estoppel within three (3) business days after the request.

In addition to the changes to the timeframe and fees related estoppel certificate issuance, the new law will require associations to provide more information than previously required. Associations will have to provide, among other things, information about parking or garage spaces, any open violations noticed to the owner or mortgagee, and contact information for all insurance maintained by the association.

While the law appears strict on its face, the intent behind the law is to provide more uniformity to the estoppel process in order to help buyers and sellers expedite their closings.

If you or your association have any questions about this new law, please give me a call at 239- 344-1231 or email me at michael.lehnert@henlaw.com.

From the handful of legislation that ultimately passed this year, Joint Resolution CS/HJR 21 was enacted. This resolution proposes an amendment to the State’s Constitution that would limit a local government’s authority to assess non-homestead real property for purposes of ad valorem taxation.

Background

Under Florida’s Constitution, ad valorem taxation is expressly reserved to local governments. The state is prohibited from levying ad valorem taxes on real and tangible personal property.

When preparing an annual assessment, the State Constitution also generally requires that all property be assessed at just value (i.e., market value) on January 1st of each year. Thereafter, such assessments are used to calculate property taxes to fund counties, municipalities, district school boards and certain special districts.

For real property that has not qualified for a homestead exemption under the applicable provisions of ch. 196, Florida Statutes, Florida’s voters approved a 2008 constitutional amendment which now limits the authority of local governments to increase non-homestead property tax assessments in excess of 10% each year (not applicable to school board assessments, years following a qualified improvement, or any year property undergoes a change in ownership or control).

Under the provisions previously approved by the 2008 amendment, Florida’s annual limitation on increases for non-homestead assessments is scheduled to expire on January 1, 2019.

CS/HJR 21

Following the Legislature’s recent passage of Joint Resolution CS/HJR 21, a new constitutional amendment will now be proposed to Florida’s voters during the 2018 general election which, if approved by a supermajority (60%) of voters, will permanently extend our state’s current 10% annual cap on non-homestead ad valorem tax assessments.

So What’s the Legal Scoop?

As this legislation will not be subject to a gubernatorial veto, Florida’s new constitutional amendment will become effective on January 1, 2019, if it is approved by the 2018 electorate.

Given the number of flourishing local businesses, vacation rentals, and secondary homes throughout Southwest Florida, which have recently benefitted from the 10% annual cap on non-homestead ad valorem assessments, a strong voter turnout in support of this measure is expected in 2018.

If you have any general questions regarding ad valorem property taxes in Florida or the recent approval of CS/HJR 21, please feel free to contact me at 239-344-1178 or via email at austin.turner@henlaw.com.